Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Friday December 18 2015, @10:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the how-do-you-spell-that dept.

The Guardian reports that "socialism" was the most looked-up word on Merriam-Webster's site this year, a change the American dictionary publisher attributes to US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has positioned of himself as a "democratic socialist".

As a socialist (or communist) myself, I personally think it's great that especially people from the United States try to figure out the meaning of the word beyond McCarthyism. I'm glad that people show interest in politics and finding out about positions of candidates.

Past years winners are available on Wikipedia.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday December 18 2015, @01:36PM

    by wisnoskij (5149) <jonathonwisnoskiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday December 18 2015, @01:36PM (#278174)

    Is there any aspect of economy that the US federal congress doesn't assume the authority to control? They may chose not to legislate some few aspects of economy, but not because they believe that they don't have the authority.

    More to the point, the American government owns outright all land, except for a few railroad tracks, and personally uses and maintains the majority.

    Which is why many people consider America a communist country. Yes, we are allowed some amount of private property, but since the government owns all the land, they own and can choose to take control of at any time legally all the resources. Which would put them in control of all material goods.

    --
    Respect my Authoritah!!!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Wootery on Friday December 18 2015, @05:34PM

    by Wootery (2341) on Friday December 18 2015, @05:34PM (#278276)

    What on Earth are you talking about?

    the American government owns outright all land, except for a few railroad tracks, and personally uses and maintains the majority.

    The federal government apparently [wikipedia.org] owns 28% of USA land.

    Which is why many people consider America a communist country.

    Are you a troll, or just completely deluded?

    the government owns all the land, they own and can choose to take control of at any time legally all the resources

    Ever heard of the Third Amendment?

    • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Friday December 18 2015, @05:54PM

      by CirclesInSand (2899) on Friday December 18 2015, @05:54PM (#278282)

      GP is right. That 28% of the land that the federal government "owns" wasn't bought, it was appropriated by executive order. When the Feds can executive order any bit of land they want, then they own all of it, whether accounting books say so or not.

      It isn't a troll. The Feds have interpreted the "interstate commerce" clause to mean that the feds have authority of every aspect of economy and anything they consider related. When the state owns every aspect of economy, many consider that communism. It's ironic when politicians decry communism while simultaneously believing in their own authority to regulate any part of it.

      You don't actually have to say that you own something to effectively own it.

      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday December 18 2015, @08:52PM

        by Wootery (2341) on Friday December 18 2015, @08:52PM (#278351)

        Ownership is a human construct, not a property of the physical world. We aren't dealing in absolutes here. Does ownership exist in the USA? isn't a yes or no question, and it's silly to treat it as being so.

        Here in the UK, the government has the right of 'Compulsory purchase order'. It's used only when necessary, and the 'victims' are compensated, so it's hardly reasonable to call it communism. You're right that in an idealised 'pure ownership' society, the government wouldn't have any such power.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 18 2015, @10:09PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 18 2015, @10:09PM (#278371) Journal

        That 28% of the land that the federal government "owns" wasn't bought, it was appropriated by executive order.

        If it's executive order, then you'll be able to point to the presidents who appropriated most of that land.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 19 2015, @12:59AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 19 2015, @12:59AM (#278429)

          I know! I know! Call on me, Teacher khallow!

          Thomas Jefferson, Louisiana Purchase. He was also going to buy a bridge in Brooklyn from the same people, but it hadn't been built yet.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 19 2015, @02:43AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 19 2015, @02:43AM (#278464) Journal

            Thomas Jefferson, Louisiana Purchase.

            No. Let's read the post that kicked this off.

            GP is right. That 28% of the land that the federal government "owns" wasn't bought, it was appropriated by executive order. When the Feds can executive order any bit of land they want, then they own all of it, whether accounting books say so or not.

            The Louisiana Purchase was a purchase from a foreign power, France. Hence, it doesn't qualify as an example for two reasons: it wasn't appropriated by executive order and it wasn't obtained from US citizens.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 19 2015, @07:50PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 19 2015, @07:50PM (#278676)

              OK, Not Tom Jefferson. How about Alaska? The Gadsen Purchase? Southern Ontario on the Plains of Abraham? Manhattan? Palau? Is there any way I can get extra credit?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 19 2015, @02:45AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 19 2015, @02:45AM (#278465) Journal
        Also, "have authority to regulate" != "own".
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Friday December 18 2015, @06:05PM

      by wisnoskij (5149) <jonathonwisnoskiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday December 18 2015, @06:05PM (#278285)

      28% is owned and directly maintained and used by the US government, the other 72% is still owned by the US government, but they have entered into real estate agreements with individuals granting them some restricted use of that land.

      --
      Respect my Authoritah!!!
    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday December 18 2015, @07:33PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday December 18 2015, @07:33PM (#278317) Journal

      Property taxes and eminent domain. If you have to continue to pay on a piece of land forever and if you miss payments they take it away from you? Then you are NOT an owner, you're a renter. I'm afraid GP is right on that one, ever since the SCOTUS used "the stitch in time that saved nine" by saying the commerce clause means whatever the government wants it to mean, including eminent domain being used to steal land to build Walmart supercenters while property taxes make it so you pay forever or lose what you "own"? There is no property ownership, its all a rental at the discretion of the state.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Saturday December 19 2015, @10:15PM

        by Wootery (2341) on Saturday December 19 2015, @10:15PM (#278746)

        All you're doing is using an overly-strict interpretation of the concept of ownership, nothing more.

        Yes, governments get to demand taxes. And yes, they may have the power of compulsory purchase. Provided these aren't abused, there's no issue, and it's rather meaningless to say that land ownership doesn't exist in the USA because of these things.

        The question is a practical one, and in practice, land-ownership is generally well protected in the USA.